Should cycle lanes be mandatory for cyclists?

RobertFoster

Roadhawk wrote: »

37 yes votes vs 72 no votes - looking good

Jeeze, use spoiler tags! I've a reminder set for 17:29 on the 9th so I know to come back. :pac:

super_furry

In the current condition and state that the cycling lanes are in, absolutely not. Invest heavily in them, make them safe and usable and enforce penalties on those blocking them and then maybe there's an argument.

Baltrux

The cycle lanes in Dublin vary from great to downright dangerous, I'm a driver and have noticed a significant amount of lanes have been put into already existing car lanes which is ridiculous as I have to use the lane to proceed in traffic leaving the cyclist nowhere, I always try to give good space but sometimes I just can't!

n97 mini

As a non-cyclist I'd prefer to see cyclists riding on footpaths and breaking red lights dealt with first. The one and only time I've been hit by moving traffic was on a pedestrian crossing, by a cyclist who ignored the red light.

When I was a kid we all cycled on the roads, there were no cycle lanes, and we all lived to tell the tale. In a slow moving urban environment I'm not sure cycle lanes are much benefit.

cython

Baltrux wrote: »

The cycle lanes in Dublin vary from great to downright dangerous, I'm a driver and have noticed a significant amount of lanes have been put into already existing car lanes which is ridiculous as I have to use the lane to proceed in traffic leaving the cyclist nowhere, I always try to give good space but sometimes I just can't!

This statement is what's ridiculous, I'm afraid, on several counts:

1. You don't have to get around them
2. Cyclists are traffic. If you can't leave a safe passing distance, then you are in traffic behind/with them. They are not "holding up traffic" so much as they are traffic. "Proceeding in traffic" around cyclists is not and should not be a thing.
3. If you can't pass leaving adequate space, then don't pass until you can. Simple

traprunner

cython wrote: »

This statement is what's ridiculous, I'm afraid, on several counts:

1. You don't have to get around them
2. Cyclists are traffic. If you can't leave a safe passing distance, then you are in traffic behind/with them. They are not "holding up traffic" so much as they are traffic. "Proceeding in traffic" around cyclists is not and should not be a thing.
3. If you can't pass leaving adequate space, then don't pass until you can. Simple

I read it that there is Baltrux is sometimes unable to leave room for cyclists to filter not that he/she squeezes them out while driving.

Chuchote

The current situation is that cyclists do use the lanes that are safe to use.

Rather than the usual Defense de Pisser Irish approach – "Let's make a law against this", what about providing a really good network of cycle lanes in the busy city centres? Separated – really separated, by a parking row or kerbs – from motor traffic, with a good surface, and wide enough.

Current cycle lanes are usually just a streak of paint on the road. Drivers routinely park on them, which is horribly dangerous if you're cycling: you have to move out into the traffic; and you have to move out at least 1.5 metres from the car for fear a door will be flung open.

If we build a great cycling network it will bring children back on to bicycles, which will have an extra effect that drivers will be more careful. At the moment, many drivers' mental image of 'a cyclist' is a burly young man in Lycra. If a good percentage were kids, drivers would think "That could be my little girl", and be tender and careful in their 2-tonne steel vehicles.

magicbastarder

i headed out the howth road on the bike yesterday, and used the cycle lane all the way. good, wide on-road lane, but the hours of operation are a bit odd - 7am-10am, then 12pm-7pm i think. what benefit is it to allow parking in them between 10am and 12pm?

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

i headed out the howth road on the bike yesterday, and used the cycle lane all the way. good, wide on-road lane, but the hours of operation are a bit odd - 7am-10am, then 12pm-7pm i think. what benefit is it to allow parking in them between 10am and 12pm?

Deliveries.

HivemindXX

n97 mini wrote: »

In a slow moving urban environment I'm not sure cycle lanes are much benefit.

This is the crux of the issue and the reason for this poll. It's counter intuitive but lots of off road cycle paths exists mainly for motorists. They, often incorrectly, believe that cyclists are slowing them down so they want them out of the way. They don't care whether the cycle paths are dangerous or inconvenient for the cyclists because their only real purpose is to get cyclists out of the way of their car.

This is how we end up with this situation where cyclists aren't using cycle paths because they don't want to and the solution is to make laws and force them rather than improve the facilities so that they want to use them and don't need to be forced.

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

Deliveries.

the section i noticed the times on was a very much residential section. couldn't say if it's the same all the way back towards fairview.

magicbastarder

n97 mini wrote: »

When I was a kid we all cycled on the roads, there were no cycle lanes, and we all lived to tell the tale.

no one died in the good old days. and if they were involved in an accident, it was a right jolly old accident where you got lots of lemonade and people got to write on your cast.

what the situation was like when you were a kid has no bearing on what the situation is like today.
the number of cars on the road has increased dramatically, certainly since i was a kid. the number of two-car families is drastically higher, i'd guess.

Anongeneric

magicbastarder wrote: »

no one died in the good old days. and if they were involved in an accident, it was a right jolly old accident where you got lots of lemonade and people got to write on your cast.

what the situation was like when you were a kid has no bearing on what the situation is like today.
the number of cars on the road has increased dramatically, certainly since i was a kid. the number of two-car families is drastically higher, i'd guess.

I think mini's point was more to do with the fact that drivers weren't always so aggressive, (although certainly the increase in numbers will also have contributed to the rising levels of aggression)

cython

traprunner wrote: »

I read it that there is Baltrux is sometimes unable to leave room for cyclists to filter not that he/she squeezes them out while driving.

Maybe that was the intention, in which case I'll hold my hands up to misinterpreting, but having re-read it several times, I would have to stretch to reach that particular interpretation from the way it was said.

n97 mini

Drivers weren't so aggressive, and neither were cyclists. Safe practices were advertised on TV all the time too, about giving cyclists plenty of space, and also about cyclists not cycling 2 or more abreast.

I think it's only since cycle lanes started to appear that a) motorists think they only need to stay out of the lanes, which are a lot narrower than the width of a small car (the amount of space the old ads said to give cyclists) and b) cyclists tend to get shouty if someone else enters their space. It used to be all the one, bigger, wider, space.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

no one died in the good old days

Made curious by this statement I entered "cyclist killed" into the Irish Times archive search, setting the dates as 01/01/1950 to 01/01/1970. Nineteen pages of results. While the results mix in motorcyclists there are plenty of cyclists killed by buses, coaches, trucks, a car wheel that fell off a truck, cycling in a group, by a car in which the Minister for Lands, Mr Childers, was a passenger, etc, etc. The vast majority, as today, were killed in collisions with cars.

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

.....the number of cars on the road has increased dramatically, certainly since i was a kid. the number of two-car families is drastically higher, i'd guess.

From 1995 to now, the number of cars on the road double from approx. 1 million then to just under 2 million today.

magicbastarder

n97 mini wrote: »

Drivers weren't so aggressive, and neither were cyclists. Safe practices were advertised on TV all the time too, about giving cyclists plenty of space, and also about cyclists not cycling 2 or more abreast.

i used to cycle to secondary school when i was a teenager (late 80s/early 90s). i certainly did have a few issues with drivers, be it aggressiveness or carelessness; on both sides (i *was* a teenager, more carelessness on my part) - most memorable one was cycling into the back of a parked car due to complete lack of observation. second most memorable one was having to bail off the bike because a bus came within inches of squashing me, and that one definitely wasn't my fault.

Chuchote

Pinch Flat wrote: »

From 1995 to now, the number of cars on the road double from approx. 1 million then to just under 2 million today.

The driver profile has changed too. Drivers are much younger. Before the 1980s, say, it was unknown for a teenager to drive – perhaps not so much in the country, but certainly in cities. We would look open-mouthed at films that showed kids driving to school in the US and think "Mad Americans!"

And cars piled full with kids were unusual. The car was Daddy's province, and he used it for his Important Work, except at weekends. Kids got to school on the bus, the bike or the feet.

All these scary ads showing what can happen with cars are a little pointless, since, to the young at least, the possibility of a death-dealing crash seems highly unlikely. They don't understand that they're driving a large metal object weighing at least 1.5 tonnes. If all people doing their driving test had to finish it up by watching a live demonstration of something like a dead pig being crushed by a car driving into it at 30km/h, it might bring the lesson home more forcibly.

magicbastarder

i know it's OT, but the thread on cyclists wearing hi-vis on this forum was closed; but this is an interesting article on the limitations of hi-vis.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bike-safety-the-great-fluoro-fallacy-20160802-gqiwce.html

endagibson

A flawed poll with hidden results. :rolleyes:

Really Roadhawk, is this another one of your posts that claims to be about cycle safety but in reality is actually anti-cycling?

Roadhawk

endagibson wrote: »

A flawed poll with hidden results. :rolleyes:

Really Roadhawk, is this another one of your posts that claims to be about cycle safety but in reality is actually anti-cycling?

You should read the previous posts. The pole is not flawed...the results are only hidden until tomorrow (one week after start of pole). Currently the score is 93 votes for no and 63 votes for yes. I have not made one biased comment in this thread and i had intended for the initial question to be as unbiased as possible.

endagibson

Roadhawk wrote: »

i had intended for the initial question to be as unbiased as possible.

That was a fail.

beauf

Roadhawk wrote: »

You should read the previous posts. The pole is not flawed...the results are only hidden until tomorrow (one week after start of pole). Currently the score is 93 votes for no and 63 votes for yes. I have not made one biased comment in this thread and i had intended for the initial question to be as unbiased as possible.

It's a strawman poll.

Only someone with no knowledge of the issues or wants to discourage cycling would come up with those options.

endagibson

At least it's an improvement on previous poll efforts.



:pac:

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Currently the score is 93 votes for no and 63 votes for yes. I have not made one biased comment in this thread and i had intended for the initial question to be as unbiased as possible.

you realise that a significant proportion of those votes are probably 'drivebys' where people see the thread on the active list on the main boards page, and come in here and vote without trying to engage with the debate?

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

you realise that a significant proportion of those votes are probably 'drivebys' where people see the thread on the active list on the main boards page, and come in here and vote without trying to engage with the debate?

I don't think he cares. This is the chap who last November was advocating the licensing of toddlers.

Roadhawk wrote: »

I mean kids cycle in safe areas such as parks and gardens, etc. If the toddler had the ability to use the bike on the road then yes, they should be licenses/registered.

Roadhawk

endagibson wrote: »

At least it's an improvement on previous poll efforts.



:pac:

I now cycle as my main mode of transport so i have certain sympathy toward some arguments made. That last poll was shut down because it immediately became an aggressive debate.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

you realise that a significant proportion of those votes are probably 'drivebys' where people see the thread on the active list on the main boards page, and come in here and vote without trying to engage with the debate?

Well that is the point of a poll like this. It is not designed to target people who feel that the current lanes are insufficient or people who believe that they are ok to use. Its not supposed to be a debate...its a poll.

Roadhawk

endagibson wrote: »

I don't think he cares. This is the chap who last November was advocated the licensing of toddlers.

I still believe that there should be a license for cyclists. And when i say license i mean a real one, not like the current license to race. There is not enough accountability for cycling in Ireland.

Danjamin1

Is the purpose of the poll just to satisfy curiosity & gauge the boards.ie populations opinion, or are we planning on making suggestions based on the current infrastructure & legislation available to see how it could be improved?

Seth Brundle

Roadhawk wrote: »

I still believe that there should be a license for cyclists. And when i say license i mean a real one, not like the current license to race. There is not enough accountability for cycling in Ireland.

Even for children?

Roadhawk

kbannon wrote: »

Even for children?

No. I now think that the age limit should start at 16.

endagibson

Roadhawk wrote: »

I still believe that there should be a license for cyclists. And when i say license i mean a real one, not like the current license to race. There is not enough accountability for cycling in Ireland.

Accountability for what exactly? What is it that cyclists are doing that you feel so strongly about that you think that it requires the assignment of resources to it right now?

Roadhawk

endagibson wrote: »

Accountability for what exactly? What is it that cyclists are doing that you feel so strongly about that you think that it requires the assignment of resources to it right now?

Top 50 things not to do while cycling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6V_ZxNiSzU

endagibson

Roadhawk wrote: »

Top 50 things not to do while cycling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6V_ZxNiSzU

I'm 10 seconds in and already I have to pause the video. If you don't want cyclists to up the inside of vehicles, why put the paint-on-the-road cycle lane there in the first place? You know, the very thing that you are suggesting that should be mandatory for them to use.
I'll press play again now in a moment. Need a cuppa first.

seamus

Roadhawk wrote: »

Top 50 things not to do while cycling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6V_ZxNiSzU

That's not an answer.

What are the burning concerns that you have right now about cyclists' behaviour that you believe justifies the reallocation of resources to address?

Or indeed, what are the issues you believe in so strongly that you'd be prepared to pay higher taxes to get more resources to deal with?

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

Top 50 things not to do while cycling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6V_ZxNiSzU

I've seen that video before, it has very little to do with cycle lane discipline, it's mostly related to doing stupid things that would put you in danger like running reds, going up the inside of trucks/buses, etc.

Is the poll specifically addressing off road cycle lanes?

Roadhawk

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I've seen that video before, it has very little to do with cycle lane discipline, it's mostly related to doing stupid things that would put you in danger like running reds, going up the inside of trucks/buses, etc.

Is the poll specifically addressing off road cycle lanes?

Thats ture and you're right, it is off topic.

No the poll was for cycle lanes in general. both on road and off road.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I still believe that there should be a license for cyclists. And when i say license i mean a real one, not like the current license to race. There is not enough ENFORCEMENT accountability for cycling in Ireland.

Cyclists are road users, and as such, are obliged to obey the rules of the road, just like everyone else. Nobody can dispute that. ALL road users break the rules of the road. Whats needed is better enforcement by the Gardai of all existing Laws.

Implementing a license for cyclists is pointless. I fail to see how introducing, yet more "Bureaucracy" will improve anything.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

No. I now think that the age limit should start at 16.

Are you implying that the vast majority of cyclist over the age of 16 are ignorant of the rules of the road?

I would suggest that the vast majority of cyclists are well aware of the ROTR, but some choose to ignore them. Cyclist run red lights not because they are unaware of what a red light means. They do it because they can. Having a license wont change this behaviour.

endagibson

Roadhawk wrote: »

Top 50 things not to do while cycling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6V_ZxNiSzU

Video is disappointing. So far I've gone through:

1. Always fasten up your backpack.
2. Use the correct light colour.
3. Don't use a roadbike on wet grass.
4. Stop at zebra crossings.
5. Don't do wheelies.
6. Put your helmet on properly.
7. Fix lights in the proper position.
8. Road/lane position when making a right turn.
9. Coming to a stop/dismounting. Doesn't seem too bothered to see cars heading straight for the guy on the bike at pace.
10. Stop at a stop sign.

Okay, that's enough. I've highlighted the ones that I see as being a problem in public because others can be injured.

Over to you. How would a license sort his out.

ED E

ED E wrote: »

I'll just leave this here:

PS: Yes its NY not ROI, but the exact same problem exists.

"I'm doing the world a favour" - Cyclist :rolleyes:

endagibson

07Lapierre wrote: »

Implementing a license for cyclists is pointless. I fail to see how introducing, yet more "Bureaucracy" will improve anything.

It'll be either handed to the public sector like the Motor Tax offices or to the same folks that run the NCT and driving license services. Either way we'll be giving out about the cost, the forms and the delays while muttering about corruption before you know it.

07Lapierre

endagibson wrote: »

It'll be either handed to the public sector like the Motor Tax offices or to the same folks that run the NCT and driving license services. Either way we'll be giving out about the cost, the forms and the delays while muttering about corruption before you know it.

I admire your optimism!.. your assuming cyclists would buy the licence in the first place!

Example: All dog owners are supposed to buy a dog license. I seriously doubt they do!

I'm OK.. we have a cat!

Cienciano

Pretty much any shared used cycle lane/footpath is dangerous for the pedestrian. They just walk out in front of cyclists all the time. I'd almost never use them

endagibson

Deleted User wrote: »

"I'm doing the world a favour" - Cyclist :rolleyes:

Well done on missing the point. The entire point. All of it. :rolleyes:

Chuchote

There's no point asking people to pay for a licence when bicycle theft is a huge, profitable, endemic crime that is almost completely ignored by the authorities.

ThisRegard

endagibson wrote: »

[*]Don't do wheelies.

Hey, just because you're crap at them don't rain on my parade!

endagibson

Chuchote wrote: »

There's no point asking people to pay for a licence when bicycle theft is a huge, profitable, endemic crime that is almost completely ignored by the authorities.

You're missing a trick here. If a category is added for ownership, such as owner, renter (for Dublin Bikes) or TWOC (taken without consent), then the Gardai can just go around and pick everyone up who ticked the last box.
Because that's how licensing works, innit.